QVM and CMC question from reporter

What happens if you build a limo from ford or cadillac w/o the certification? who cares? why?
please call me or e-mail me 212-301-3785

My Dear Lady
A lot of operators care deeply about this subject.
QVM and CMC certify that Ford or Cadillac have inspected every aspect of the construction of a limousine and will give full Factory backing to the end product. This affects the insurance companies who give a better rate to operators using QVM and CMC limousines, and it affects the client who is riding in a far safer and better built vehicle than that built to an inferior standard, it is and continues to be an industry standard.
Sincerely
Dick Hall

the government standards, that everyone must adhere to, are inferior to CMC and QVM?

Are cars that are not CMC and QVM certified not allowed on the road? Are limo makers not allowed to stretch those cars w/o certification?

Dear Megan
In answer to your questions, There are few Government standards for stretch limousines apart from the overall weight and length factors. Therefore QVM and CMC are a joint effort by both the manufacturers and the Industry to to produce safer and better built limousines for the customer.

A limousine that is not built by a QVM or CMC manufacturer is allowed on the road,but if you see one as I did with the back broken and the center of the vehicle touching the road, indicative of insufficient chassis bracing you know it is not correctly made.

Yes they are and there are good and bad makers.

If you are stretching a vehicle any thing from 6 inches to 120 inches there is a lot of metal required for the additional length, the chassis extension, the electrical wiring and so on, this alone gives a huge extra weight factor.
Sincerely
Dick Hall

In regards to your question who cares? I care and I'm sure that if the passengers who are the public will care once they are educated on the subject. Currently QVM does not allow a limousine to be stretched beyond 120". CMC currently does not allow for a limousine to be stretched beyond 130". Now these vehicles have gone under millions of dollars worth of testing by Ford and GM. They have been deemed safe based on all of this testing. A NON-QVM or NON-CMC vehicle has not gone through the same testing as the certified vehicles. What Ford and GM know is that under certain weight loads, certain parts such as breaks and suspension do not perform in specified tested and proven safe specifications. Here is an example ; you have a non QVM or non CMC certified vehicle that is 220" carrying 20 people. The vehicles breaks fail in an emergency situation which results in an accident. Do you want to be in this vehicle? As a matter of fact in our area major companies DO NOT rent non certified vehicles because of the liabilty risk. Lets say meagan you rent a 220" limousine and it gets into an accident. The other passengers in the limousine who were injured can turn around and sue you for not renting a certified vehicle because the accident could have been caused by the excessive weight load which caused the breaks to fail.

If there is an accident in ANY limousine where passengers are hurt, the limousine company is sure to be sued. If there is not enough insurance then Meagans "friendds" will sue her personal insurance company for the extra liability. If there still is not enough insurance, the coachbuilder, the state that maintains the roads and the other factions will be sued. The last thing the court and attorney's will worry about is if the vehicle is QVM or CMC certified. I don't think many folks know that QVM and CMC certification is not "officially" certified by the government but only by Ford and GM who like to limit their liability. The "official" certification by the US Government is by NHTSA and QVM and CMC have nothing to do with it. There are many non-QVM manufacturers that comply with NHTSA regulations, this is the "official" US government certification.

Wade Randolph

There was a case in Michigan Wade where an individual sued a company because the accident may have been caused by the vehicle not being certified.

Just because a limo is in an accident doesn't mean the company will be sued for sure. I also know of a case where a limo was hit and the person who hit the limo was sued not the company. Also Yes it does matter if a vehicle is non QVM and gets into an accident because I know of a case where a Stretched 220" was in an accident and the front brakes did not perform and actually failed under the driving emergency that the driver had to maneuver the limo. Imagine 22 people in a stretch in a car that is already to heavy to begin with. Well you can see why there is an issue for the non QVM vehicle. IT MATTERS. The car manufacturers will tell you that there is no way certain parts will perform effectively if the weight load is beyond specifications. So Wade I beg to differ that it does not matter.

Unless someone out there who has actually spent the tens of millions of dollars that lincoln spent in research, development, and in testing then I do not want to hear people shooting the QVM program. Show me your statistical data that proves the vehicles are safe and do not have excessive wear and tear because you can bet your buck that the manufactures have the data that says what specifics failed under the conditions.

Let's remember that the QVM/CMC programs, although billed by the OEMs as a "safety" issue, are really programs to attempt to draw a line between the OEM's liability versus the coach builder. None of us can really know if it is truly a safety issue or not (at least up to a certain length and weight) because we do not have the engineering wherewithal to make that determination. Could there be something else at work - such as the OEM desire to hold vehicle capacities down and therefore sell more cars? - possibly, but doubtful because the number of cars sold to coachbuilders to stretch is such an insignificant part of the OEMs production that it is unlikely to be a motivating factor. The OEM liability is the big issue. Now, having said that, my guess is that the QVM/CMC standards are probably like all design standards, there is plenty of room for a margin of safety. When civil engineers build bridges they build them 2 to 3 times stronger than necessary to deal with eventualities. My guess is that the QVM/CMC standards are also like that. But there is likely a reason of that - let me give you an example. A 180" stretch will perform much differently in places in the midwest and southwest where the terrain is flat and a lot of extra pressure is not put on brakes and drivetrain. It is a radically different situation, for example, in Pittsburgh, where we have nothing but steep inclines and narrow streets and a lot of traffic. Brake fade is a way of life in stretch limousines here, even with 120" cars. So what standard does the OEM have to design to? Obviously, to the most rigorous conditions that the car is likely to operate in. Thus, you will get loads of anecdotal evidence from operators and coachbuilders who conclude, based on their experience is low-stress environments, that the QVM/CMC program is an OEM conspiracy against coachbuilders and who knows who else. On the other hand, talk to any driver in our city who has driven long cars (non-QVM/CMC) very much, and they all have stories of brake fade, etc. Can a non-QVM/CMC vehicle operate within the margin of safety in non-stress conditions - probably, and a lot of operators in such areas will likely say "yes." Point being, in places like Pittsburgh the answer is that the non-QVM/CMC vehicle is not "unsafe," but it is pushing the margin of safety as thje vehicle is stressed by conditions. Given the possible liability that the OEM can incur since it is the "deep pocket" defendant, wouldn't you design for the maximum rather than minimum margin of safety. Remember, as I said at the outset, this is an OEM liability issue - not a bright-line standard for vehicle safety.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nkokas:
Unless someone out there who has actually spent the tens of millions of dollars that lincoln spent in research, development, and in testing then I do not want to hear people shooting the QVM program. Show me your statistical data that proves the vehicles are safe and do not have excessive wear and tear because you can bet your buck that the manufactures have the data that says what specifics failed under the conditions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

James H. Joseph
Pegasus Chauffeured Motor Cars
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
jhj@pegasus-pittsburgh.com

I think my point was missed. To this date nobody has proven that the QVM/CMC cars are safer. I own QVM cars and non-QVM cars. The manufacturer of my non-QVM limo has passed all NHSTA checks. I am also located in a very litigious state and whenever there are injuries in auto accidents, everyone is sued. I totally concour with JHJ about Ford and GM limiting their liability. They only want 8 people in their vehicles. I find it ironic that GM and Ford have continued over the years to allow the coachbuilders to add lenght to their vehicles knowing that the limo operators were using this extra length for more passengers. They continue to advertise 120" stretch cars as 8-passenger vehicles knowing all along the limo operators are putting 10-passengers in them. If you look closely at the weight numbers for the Lincoln Town Car, the longer the car is stretched the less people your *allowed* seating capacity. I find this very amusing. I had a Dabryan 85" limousine years ago that was certified for 9-passengers plus the driver, but my 120" Dabryan limousine was certified for 7-passengers in the rear and none in the front seat. This is just another example of how silly this numbers game is for Ford and GM. Why allow a coachbuilder to add more seating capacity and at the same time limit the capacity? Answer: limited liability. And im not saying all non-QVM cars are safe either. You must do your due diligence when purchasing any expensive piece of equipment in your company. I own a 150" stretch Navigator built by Craftsmen Limousine in Springfield MO. You can ask any of my chauffeurs, it has more stopping power than my 120" QVM stretches. It also has a larger sleeved frame and beefier extrusion beams built into the side. QVM places more emphasis on lightness than strenght of parts in my opinion. As a matter of fact when Ford allowed the Town CAr to be stretched 120" years ago they mandated the extrusion beams be lighter and smaller for weight reasons. I don't know about you but If I were riding in the back of a 120" QVM stretch that was about to be T-boned I would much rather have the old, heavier beams than the new ones, the hell with the weight limit. Anyway my point was just to show that to this date nobody has proven that a QVM car is safer than the non-QVM car.

Wade Randolph

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nkokas:
Unless someone out there who has actually spent the tens of millions of dollars that lincoln spent in research, development, and in testing then I do not want to hear people shooting the QVM program. Show me your statistical data that proves the vehicles are safe and do not have excessive wear and tear because you can bet your buck that the manufactures have the data that says what specifics failed under the conditions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
E-mail Maury Sutton at csutton@ucla.edu for an account of the beginning of the QVM program. A word with Robert Haswell will perhaps give you another perspective.

Dean Schuler

I never believed a "car" should be stretched over 85 inches maybe 100 inches max. I did not give into demands until 1994 to the 120 world a non QVM'd Springfield. It was the best limo I had until I discovered LCW. The Insurance industry is they only ones that can stop the rediculas stretching of a car by not insuring them.
Just my 3 1/2 cents.
TT

Wade, I understood what you said perfectly. While there may have been a case "filed" in Michigan, I doubt that the findings in the case were based on whether the car was QVM or not. I further conclude that anyone being sued for injuries sustained in a limousine accident will be anyone involved including the operator, the coachbuilder, the manufacturer, the lessee and when all other names have been used, John Doe 1-50 will be used and substituted with real names. I'm sure our resident attorney here on the forum with agree with me in this point. We live it a society that loves to sue. Think of the McDonald's hot coffee incident. It's ridiculous but to think that OEM certification is going to add an ounce of protection from a lawsuit is simply a far fetched dream. I have operated both certified and non-certified. I specifically had an Ultra limousine refused by our insurance carrier several years ago because they had a massive claim in which the car literally broke in half during an accident and because of it, they would no longer insure Ultra, non-QVM, vehicles. Insurance companies certainly care. As far as the government, I don't think anyone from a highway patrol officer to a state senator would know what those certifications mean. Amazing what commotion a reporter could cause with a simple question. I assume Megan, you are writing a positive story on our industry and the safety measures taken to insure our passengers safety. Right?

Regrettably, there is a prevalent practice of suing everybody remotely connected with an occurrence resulting in personal or property damages, but this is largely a practice of the seamy underbelly of the legal profession which, unfortunately, tends to predominate in personal injury cases - it also happens to be one of my pet peeves. There are inhibitions against this nonsense and most court rules make this conduct sanctionable. The problem is that most judges are lax in enforcing those rules, and when a defendant who shouldn't have been sued gets out of the case they are usually content to run and hide rather than pursue sanctions against the offending lawyer. As for suing "Does," that is a predominately California practice (as well as a number of other Western states of like mind). "Doe" pleadings are impermissible and in many other states, and in most of the original 13 colonies which adopted the English common law which, likewise, did not permit "Doe" pleading. This is an invention of courts in U.S. states which never had a strong common law tradition that we have in the original colonies.
As for the "protection" that the OEM may get from the QVM/CMC programs, there certainly is NO protection from being sued, especially since most lawyers representing any injured person will never learn about those standards until long after the suit has been filed and discovery is well along. However, there is likely to be some real protection against ultimate liability, or the shifting of liability to others (such as the coachbuilder). The major prophylactic effect of the QVM/CMC programs, I think, is that the Ultras of the world know when they build a non-QVM/CMC vehicle and it gets in an accident where the design and/or contruction of the vehicle is a question, the OEM will be there pointing the finger at the coachbuilder with reams of engineering data and opinion. So the non-QVM/CMC coachbuilder takes on considerable risk of being put on the dime by the OEM, and its insurance company also takes such matters into consideration. So the QVM/CMC programs provide some protection from liability, but a lot of finger-pointing rights, all of which should tend to discourage non-QVM/CMC stretching by all except the irresponsible.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Limo Scene:
Wade, I understood what you said perfectly. While there may have been a case "filed" in Michigan, I doubt that the findings in the case were based on whether the car was QVM or not. I further conclude that anyone being sued for injuries sustained in a limousine accident will be anyone involved including the operator, the coachbuilder, the manufacturer, the lessee and when all other names have been used, John Doe 1-50 will be used and substituted with real names. I'm sure our resident attorney here on the forum with agree with me in this point. We live it a society that loves to sue. Think of the McDonald's hot coffee incident. It's ridiculous but to think that OEM certification is going to add an ounce of protection from a lawsuit is simply a far fetched dream. I have operated both certified and non-certified. I specifically had an Ultra limousine refused by our insurance carrier several years ago because they had a massive claim in which the car literally broke in half during an accident and because of it, they would no longer insure Ultra, non-QVM, vehicles. Insurance companies certainly care. As far as the government, I don't think anyone from a highway patrol officer to a state senator would know what those certifications mean. Amazing what commotion a reporter could cause with a simple question. I assume Megan, you are writing a positive story on our industry and the safety measures taken to insure our passengers safety. Right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

James H. Joseph
Pegasus Chauffeured Motor Cars
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
jhj@pegasus-pittsburgh.com